ABDUL HAMEED vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY arts — 2021 PLC(CS) 1439 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL HAMEED VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY arts. 184 & 185---Judgments/orders of the Supreme Court---Scope---When there was a categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court, which was specific in nature, the same could not be expanded and extended to change its meaning, scope and applicability. Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS) 1439 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDUL HAMEED VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY S. 4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 3 & 5---Service appeal involving a financial claim from an employee---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---Principle that where a claim involved a financial matter or payment of dues, it constituted a recurring cause of action and thus impediment of limitation in filing service appeal would not be applicable, and any delay in filing the same was to be condoned---Held, that said principle applied only where the claim was found to be valid and entitlement of the litigant had been established in judicial proceedings before a court of law of competent jurisdiction---Only in such circumstances, courts had in appropriate cases, condoned delay---Condonation of delay could not be granted merely on the ground that a financial claim had been raised, irrespective of its merit legality and validity. Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS) 1439 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDUL HAMEED VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Special WAPDA allowance---Category of employees entitled to the allowance and date from which such allowance took effect---Policy matter---Non-interference by superior Courts---Scope---Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) allowed allowance in question for Graduate Engineers (BPS-17) and above with effect from 20.2.2009---Said allowance was subsequently also allowed for Scientific Cadre Officers (appellants and the petitioners), with immediate effect from 26.11.2013---Appellants and petitioner contended that they should also be given the allowance in question with effect from 20.2.2009---Held, that respondent-authority (WAPDA) had to evaluate its fiscal capacity and could not simply dole out allowances at any date and time, and, at the whims of anyone who may feel aggrieved of an order which was otherwise properly passed by an authority competent to do so---Respondent-authority had the prerogative to ascertain which class of employees should receive additional allowances and from which date---Such decision would obviously depend on various factors including available financial resources, nature of job of the employees and reasons to allow additional incentives to a certain class of employees --- In the present case, respondent-Authority (WAPDA) vide office order dated 20.2.2009, accorded approval for the allowance to be paid to Graduate Engineers in BPS-17 and above, with immediate effect---Said allowance was clearly and obviously only meant for graduate engineers, as specified in the office order---As such, the claim of the appellants and the petitioners that they should (also) have been granted the allowance from 20.2.2009 was untenable because none of them were graduate engineers---Internal working of the respondent-authority (WAPDA) was an administrative and executive function in the domain of policy and unless an illegality or violation of rules and regulations could be shown, non-interference by the Courts was the norm---Grant of allowance being a policy matter could not be interfered with---Appeals and petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed. Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS) 1439 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDUL HAMEED VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY arts. 199 & 185(3)---Policy decisions of a competent authority---Non-interference by superior Courts---Scope---Court's role was not to interfere in policy decisions, unless it was manifest that, such policy decisions were the outcome of arbitrary exercise of power, mala fides, were patently illegal or manifestly unreasonable.

ABDUL HAMEED vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY arts — 2021 PLC(CS) 1439 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLC